Judgment : V. Dhanapalan, J. 1. The petitioner is the wife of detenu. The detenu has been branded as a "Goonda" as contemplated under Section 2 (f) of the Tamil Nadu Act 14 of 1982 and detained under order of the 2nd respondent passed in Memo No.1017/BDFGISSV/2013 dated 16.09.2013. 2. The detenu came to adverse notice in the following cases:- Sr.No. Police Station and Crime No. Sections of Law 1 H-4, Korukkupet Police Station Crime No.938 of 2011 Sections 341, 385 and 506 (ii) r/w 149 IPC 2 H-1, Washermenpet Police Station Crime No.832 of 2013 Sections 147, 148, 120(b) and 302 IPC 3 H-4, Korukkupet Police Station Crime No.417 of 2013 Sections 341, 294(b), 323, 385 and 506(ii) IPC The ground case alleged against the detenu is one registered on 18.08.2013 by the Inspector of Police, H-4, Korukkupet Police Station in Crime No.422 of 2013 for offences under Sections 341, 294(b), 323, 385, 427, 336, 307 and 506(ii) IPC. Aggrieved by the order of detention, the present petition has been filed. 3. Though learned counsel for the petitioner has raised several other grounds to assail the order of detention, he has mainly focussed his argument on the ground that there is a delay in disposal of the representation dated 28.09.2013, which is violative of Article 22(5) of the Constitution of India and therefore, on this sole ground alone, the detention order is liable to be quashed. 4. We have heard the learned Additional Public Prosecutor on the above submission. 5. On a careful scrutiny of the impugned order, it is seen that the detaining authority has passed the order of detention on 16.09.2013 and on receipt of a copy of detention order, the detenu made a representation dated 28.09.2013 to the authorities concerned, which was received on 01.10.2013, for which the remarks called on 04.10.2013 were received on 02.12.2013. On submission of the file on 02.12.2013, it was dealt with by both the Under Secretary and Deputy Secretary on the same day and thereafter, the file was submitted to the Minister on 05.12.2013. 6. On submission of the file on 02.12.2013, it was dealt with by both the Under Secretary and Deputy Secretary on the same day and thereafter, the file was submitted to the Minister on 05.12.2013. 6. In this whole process, there occurred a delay of 41 days, namely, between 04.10.2013 and 02.12.2013 (excluding holidays falling on 5th, 6th, 12th, 13th, 19th, 20th, 26th, 27th of October 2013, 2nd 3rd, 9th, 10th, 16th, 17th, 23rd, 24th, 30th of November, 2013 and 1st of December, 2013, which would definitely cause great prejudice to the detenu due to inordinate and unexplained delay and amount to an infringement of right ensured under Article 22(5) of the Constitution of India. Therefore, the impugned detention order cannot be sustained and is vitiated. 7. Accordingly, the impugned detention order passed by the 2nd respondent, detaining the detenu Kumar @ Karuppu Kumar, S/o.Thiruvenkadam, made in Memo No.1017/BDFGISSV/2013 dated 16.09.2013 is quashed and the Habeas Corpus Petition is allowed. The above named detenu, who is detained at the Central Prison, Puzhal, Chennai, is ordered to be set at liberty forthwith, unless his custody is required in connection with any other case. 8. However, this order shall not preclude authorities concerned to effectively contest the matter before the Regular Court, uninfluenced by the above order. It is also made clear that this order shall not confer any right whatsoever to the detenu to claim anything before the Regular Court.